So says Mark Nicholas in an article on cricinfo
In my own cricket league, which is the furthest away form top level cricket imaginable, there is a pretty fair understanding that the batsman knows better than the (inexperienced) umpire anyway. So we simply go by the batsman's decision. Hardly ever goes wrong.
I guess that doesn't work at Test level. If a batsman doesn't nick it, yet is given out, he doesn't have the right to stay in! Though he does have the option to review it!
Mark Nicholas states the following in his article:
But is that really so? During this summer's Ashes, we've seen Michael Clarke review, whereas he had clearly nicked it. And we've seen Joe Root no reviewing, while he had clearly not nicked it.Pretty much always, batsmen know whether or not they have hit the ball, and if they have, well, they are out.
So, would it really work, even if batsmen were all being honoust?